1.9.15 S21 White Sand Lake - cetg.weebly.com

21-1

Section 21

About White Sand Lake

Waabaawangaa-zaaga’igan (White Sand)

—Our Earth1

Introduction The Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake

Management Plan includes sections for each of the

ten lakes in the watershed. The lakes are in the

largest watershed in Lac du Flambeau, within the

Reservation’s boundaries, associated with high use

landings, and have complete data sets required for a

lake management plan. The purpose of the plan is to

establish the current health of the watershed and

lakes and suggest how to maintain or improve their

health in the future.

This section includes introductory information about

White Sand Lake; a summary of how uses of the

lake have changed over time; data from the

community survey; and an assessment of the lake’s

health based on data for the lake’s biology,

chemistry, nutrients, habitat, bacteria, lake levels,

and aesthetics. This section also includes an action

plan for improving or maintaining the overall health

of White Sand Lake.

White Sand Lake is in the Bear River Watershed

(Subwatershed HUC12-070500020202) northeast of

the town center of Lac du Flambeau (Figure 21-1).

Figure 21-1. Map of Lakes

The lake is approximately 1229 acres and has a

maximum depth of 63 feet (Table 21-1). White Sand

Lake is classified as a drainage lake, meaning that it

is fed by streams, groundwater, precipitation, and

run off, and is drained by a stream or channel. White

Sand Lake drains through Hutton’s Creek at its

western end into Pokegama Lake where it ultimately

flows into the Bear River.

From the northeast shore of this lake (Pokegama

Lake), a portage of half a mile, over sand hills,

covered with small pines and elevated about thirty

feet above the general level of the small lakes which

leads to Lake Wepetangok (White Sands Lake).

—R.G. Norwood, Report of a geological reconnaissance2

Tourism did not employ as many people as

lumbering in its heyday, but it did mix traditional

and modern subsistence practices and fit within a

regional tradition of seasonal work.

—Aaron Shapiro, The Lure of the North Woods3

21-2 Section 21: About White Sand Lake

Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan

Table 21-1. Basic Data for White Sand Lake

Morphology

Acreage (Acres) 1229

Maximum Depth (Feet) 63

Mean Depth (Feet) 24

Retention Time (Years) 4.42

Drainage Area (Acres) 5328

Drainage Basin/Lake Area Ratio 4.3

Vegetation

Survey Data Collected 2010

Number of Native Species 32

Floristic Quality Index 34.5

Simpson’s Diversity Index 0.91

Percent Vegetated (%) 50.33

Average Conservatism 6.41

Water Quality

Trophic State Mesotrophic

Limiting Nutrient Phosphorus

Water Acidity (pH) 7.3

Sensitivity of Acid Rain Low

Watershed to Lake Area Ratio 4:01

Aquatic Invasive Species Rusty Crayfish Freshwater Jellyfish Purple Loosestrife

White Sand Lake stratifies annually with the

hypolimnion reaching dissolved oxygen below

5mg/L. With Secchi readings averaging 15.24 feet,

the lake’s water clarity is considered to be good.

Based on Secchi, total phosphorus, and Chlorophyll

a data, White Sand Lake is classified as

mesotrophic. Mesotrophic lakes generally have

medium levels of nutrients and water clarity when

compared to other natural lakes.

White Sand Lake’s watershed includes water

(44.7%), forests (44%), urban (0.3%), and wetlands

(11%).

There are 202 dwellings, mostly residential, within

300 feet of the lake’s shoreline.

White Sand Lake has a public landing off of County

Road H and two private landings, one at each of two

resorts and another one at the private campground.

Brief History of White Sand Lake The history of White Sand Lake, including how uses

of the lake have changed over time, parallels the

history of the other lakes in the Bear River

Watershed as described at length in Section 3.

Unless noted otherwise, the information here is

footnoted in Section 3.

For hundreds of years White Sand Lake was used

by indigenous people for subsistence. Virtually every

facet of their lives depended on their relationship

with the lake and its surrounding habitats for food,

medicine, building materials, and transportation.

With the arrival of the Europeans in the early to mid-

seventeenth century, White Sand Lake and the

surrounding habitats took on a new use: to help

provide the world with furs. Lac du Flambeau

became a transportation center for the fur trade, and

White Sand Lake became part of the network of

canoe routes and portages which linked Lac du

Flambeau with trade routes in all directions. White

Sand Lake, for example, was part of the primary

route linking Lac du Flambeau with Lac Vieux Desert

to the northeast.4

By 1840 the fur-bearing animals were gone and White

Sand Lake and its surrounding habitats took on

another new use: to provide the country with timber

and timber products. To facilitate the movement of

logs from White Sand Lake to the mills on Long

Interlaken Lake, a dam was constructed at the

confluence of Flambeau Lake and the Bear River.

Hutton’s Creek (Sand Creek) connects White Sand

Lake at its southwest end with Pokegama Lake. The

dam there was likely built originally by the Tribe in

the mid-1870s. When property on White Sand Lake

was subsequently sold, the creek and dam

Section 21: About White Sand Lake 21-3


transferred to private ownership. In 1940, the Town

of Lac du Flambeau paid August Wolff $135 to

replace the original dam which had washed out.5

In the 1900s, Marvin Hewitt, the president of the

Chicago and Northwestern Railroad, decided he

wanted to take his steam launch with his guests

fishing in more than one lake. Railroad construction

crews dug about four miles of ten-foot wide canals to

link White Sand, Sunfish, Crooked, Little Trout, and

Ike Walton Lakes.6

By 1913, the trees around White Sand Lake were

gone and most of the surrounding habitats were

destroyed. In the early 1900’s, however, the logging

industry was already being replaced by the service

industry, which used White Sand Lake and its

surrounding habitats to meet the recreational needs

and demands of tourists and seasonal residents.

As a result of the Dawes Act (1887), much of the

lakefront property on White Sand Lake was

transferred from the Tribe to non-Tribal residents,

opening the door shoreline to development.

In 1910, George Goller built the first tourist cabins

on White Sand Lake.7 In 1923 Gust Peterson and his

two brothers, Fred and Oscar, bought the 35-acre

peninsula and the property to the east and west as a

retreat center for their families.8

Later that year, Gust Peterson sold his 35 acres on

the peninsula on a land contract to his nephew Ben

C. Gauthier, who constructed a hotel and 13

buildings on the 35 acre site and began work in the

resort business.9

Dillman’s Resort was born in 1934 when Marvin and

Peg Peterson Dillman purchased the same 35-acre

property on a land contract from Peg’s father, Gust

Peterson (Figure 21-2). In order to help keep the

resort, Marvin and Peg tried raising chickens, mink,

and milk cows plus held winter jobs in Chicago. In

1970 the present owners, Sue (Marvin and Peg’s

daughter) and Denny Robertson, took over

managing the resort.10

Figure 21-2. Dillman’s Resort on White Sand Lake

One of the cabins on the property today sheltered

Baby Face Nelson who was on the run in April 1934

following a shootout at Little Bohemia in Manitowish

Waters. At the time Baby Face Nelson used the

cabin, it was the home of Ollie Catfish and was

located across the lake from Dillman’s. In 1935, Peg

and Marvin Dillman moved the then empty building

across the frozen lake for use as a cabin for their

patrons.11

In 1923, a second of the Peterson brothers, Oscar,

opened a small resort west of his brother Gust’s

property. Eventually he sold the resort to Joyce and

Bob Watson who ran Watson’s Holiday Beach

Resort for 25 years. The third Peterson brother,

Fred, also sold his property, which eventually

became the present White Sand Resort.12

In the 1930s, Molly and Mitch Bloecher established

Bloecher’s Beach Resort near Dillman’s Resort.

Laurie and Rick Zelm purchased Bloecher’s Beach

Resort in 1986 and renamed it White Sand Resort.

Timber Bay Resort, formally, Watson’s Holiday Beach

Resort is now owned by Sean & Darcy McEnroe.13

In 1922, 11 families from Winnetka, Illinois

purchased 90 acres with frontage on both White

Sand and Little Sand Lakes for a private camp. They

called it Camp Wipigaki, Ojibwe for Red-at-the-Leaf.

By 1925 Wipigaki had grown to 500 acres and had

cabins and a common dining hall.14



By the 1960s, tourists could choose among several

resorts on White Sand Lake, including Anderson’s

Resort, Field’s Log Cabin Resort, Schmidt’s

Breezewood Resort, Watson’s Holiday Beach, and

Dillman’s Sand Lake Lodge.15

Presently there are

three resorts on White Sand Lake, Dillman’s Resort,

Timber Bay Resort, and White Sand Resort.

Community Survey16

Approximately 3,000 households in Lac du

Flambeau were invited to participate in a mail survey

during the summer of 2012 to provide information for

preparing the Bear River Watershed Comprehensive

Lake Management Plan. The survey was developed

with assistance from the Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources and was approved by the WDNR

before it was distributed.

The survey includes questions on topics such as

residents’ perceptions of the quality of lake water,

fishery, and overall environment; residents’ familiarity

with aquatic invasive species and aquatic plants;

residents’ perceptions of current and ideal shoreline

landscaping; and residents’ interests in a variety of

workshops. The survey, data tables, and other

information related to the survey are in the appendix.

One-third of the questionnaires (996) were returned

completed, representing 51 lakes. Of the returned

questionnaires, 576 (58%) provide information on

the ten lakes in the Bear River watershed and of

these, 102 (18%) focus on White Sand Lake.

Tables showing results of the survey are presented

throughout the rest of this section. Care should be

taken when interpreting the survey data because in

many cases the number of respondents for White

Sand Lake is very low.

Assessing Lake Health Medical doctors assess human health by examining

a patient’s blood work, height, weight among

numerous other measures (quantitative data) and by

considering information like the patient’s answers to

questions, comments, even body language

(qualitative data). Similarly, lake managers assess

lake health by examining the lake’s oxygen,

nitrogen, phosphorus, among other measures

(quantitative data) and by considering additional

information about the lake like the presence of

aquatic invasive species, nuisance aquatic plants, or

even presence of trash (qualitative data).

White Sand Lake Health Report Assessing the health of White Sand Lake has

included examining qualitative and quantitative data

pertinent to the lake’s biology, chemistry, nutrients,

habitat, bacteria, aesthetics, and fish tissue. These

categories are introduced in the next few pages and

are addressed at length in the rest of the section.

Table 21-2 shows the categories, their subdivisions

(Indicator Assessments), and the ratings that have

been applied to them, Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor,

Concern or Not Assessed (See Section 10 for

details on rating).

The Biology Category reflects an assessment of the

number and magnitude of invasive species. White

Sand Lake has rusty crayfish, freshwater jellyfish,

and purple loosestrife, but none at the nuisance

level. Other than purple loosestrife, the lake does

not have any invasive plants.17

The floristic quality

index18

is good (FQI 34.5), and the lake's overall

status for the Biology Category is good.

The Chemistry Category reflects an assessment19

of

data for dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, ionic

strength, and suspended solids as compared to

water quality standards criteria.20

Dissolved oxygen

for White Sand Lake during the summer can reach

below 5mg/L, the criteria for cool water fish, so it has

a status of good. White Sand Lake’s overall status

for the Chemistry Category is excellent.



Table 21-2. Assessment Categories and Indicator Values for White Sand Lake

Category Indicator Assessment Overall Status

Biology

Invasive aquatic plant Excellent

Good

Invasive fish Excellent

Invasive invertebrate Good

Invasive wetland plant Good

FQI Good

Chemistry

Dis. Oxygen (DO) Good

Excellent

pH pH Excellent

Temperature Excellent

Ionic Strength Excellent

Sus. Solids (SS) Excellent

Nutrients Phosphorus P Excellent

Excellent Chlorophyll a Excellent

Habitat

Plants H Good

Good Riparian Zone Good

Littoral Zone Good

Bacteria Bacteria NA NA

Aesthetics

Oil & Grease Excellent

Excellent

Taste & Odor NA

Turb/Color Excellent

Nuisance Plants Good

Trash/Debris Good

Tissue Spec. Chem. H Concern Concern

Lake Level Level NA NA

The Nutrients Category reflects an assessment21

of

data for phosphorus and Chlorophyll a levels as

compared to National Lake Survey (NLS)

thresholds22

for the upper Midwest ecoregion health

conditions and for the upper limit compared to

Wisconsin’s new water quality standards for a two-

story fishery lake.23

The NLS was a study of Lakes

across the United States, and thresholds for good,

fair and poor were developed based on the data

collected for each ecoregion. White Sand Lake’s

overall status for the Nutrients Category is excellent

as average total phosphorus is 11.20µg/L, and

Chlorophyll a is 3.1µg/L.

The Habitat Category reflects an assessment24

of

White Sand Lake’s aquatic plants, riparian zone

(shoreline), and littoral zone (shallow water along

shoreline). Comparisons are made with ecoregional

data and National Lake Survey thresholds.25

All

indicators for White Sand Lake have a rating of

good. White Sand Lake’s overall status for the

Habitat Category is good.

The Bacteria Category reflects an assessment26

of

summer E. coli measurements that were taken

weekly and then compared to Water Quality

Standards criteria27

for human health protection.

White Sand Lake does not have a public beach so

the lake was not assessed for bacteria.

The Aesthetics Category reflects an assessment of

data and information on water quality, color, and

turbidity as well as an assessment of reports

received by the Tribal Natural Resources

Department for White Sand Lake on the presence of

oil, grease, nuisance aquatic plants, and

trash/debris. This information is compared to

narrative criteria as described in the Water Quality

Standards.28

White Sand Lake’s overall status for

the Aesthetics Category is excellent.

The Tissue Category reflects an assessment of the

amount of mercury in the flesh of fish in White Sand

Lake as compared to the Water Quality Standards.29

Larger edible fish have more mercury in their flesh

than what is protective for human health concerns.

White Sand Lake’s overall status for the Tissue

Category is of concern.

The lake levels were assessed for White Sand Lake

but a condition criteria has not been developed at

this time. Information about lake levels is presented

at the end of this section.

Biology Category Biology is the science of living organisms. The

organisms that live together in the lake interact in

large part based on their food relationships. The

food pyramid for lakes (Figure 21-3) shows the

proportion of biological production to the yield of

large fish. The organisms are in balance after

thousands of years of naturally evolving together

within these food relationships.



Invasive species, however, are organisms that

evolved originally in other locations and when they

move into a naturally balanced area disrupt the

native organisms’ relationships.

Figure 21-3. Lake Food Pyramid

Invasive species are a great concern. Their

introduction can cause changes of native organisms’

distribution and abundance and contribute to water

quality degradation. The introduction of the invasive

aquatic plant, Eurasian water milfoil, can cause the

reduction in large game fish as the native insects

and small fish have not evolved to eat EWM,

causing a loss of food resource for large fish and an

overabundance of plant matter.

White Sand Lake has rusty crayfish, freshwater

jellyfish, and purple loosestrife (see Section 7 for

specifics). At this time, however, there is no

evidence that they are disturbing the abundance or

distribution of native organisms or causing economic

or ecological harm.

To help determine the extent of residents’ familiarity

with Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS), the community

survey asked residents to answer a few questions

about AIS. Their responses to some of the questions

follow.

Residents were asked if they had heard of AIS

before reading about them in the survey. For White

Sand Lake, 34 of 102 respondents (33%) indicate

they had prior knowledge of AIS as compared to 171

of 576 (30%) for respondents of the ten lakes in the

Bear Watershed, and 300 of 996 (30%) for all

respondents from Lac du Flambeau.

Residents having prior knowledge of AIS were

shown a list of AIS and then asked which, if any, are

currently in the lake. Table 21-3 shows the

responses of 34 residents for White Sand Lake. The

table also shows whether the AIS are actually in the

lake. For example, 3 of the 34 residents believe that

Eurasian water milfoil is in the lake, when in fact it is

not. The table shows there is a general

disconnection between residents’ perceptions of the

presence of AIS and the actual presence of AIS.

Table 21-3. White Sand Lake - Perceived vs Actual Presence of AIS

AIS # Respondents Perceived Presence

Actually Present

Banded Mystery Snail 2 of 34 6% No

Eurasian Water Milfoil 3 of 34 9% No

Rainbow Smelt 0 of 34 0% No

Chinese Mystery Snail 2 of 34 6% No

Freshwater Jellyfish 1 of 34 3% Yes

Rusty Crayfish 5 of 34 15% Yes

Curly-leaf Pondweed 1 of 34 3% No

Purple Loosestrife 7 of 34 21% Yes

None of Above 9 of 34 27%

The same 34 respondents were asked to identify

what they believe is threatened by AIS. Table 21-4

summarizes the responses for White Sand Lake, the

ten lakes in the Bear River Watershed, and the 51

lakes in the survey. The largest percentages of

responses for all three groups of respondent’s show

that native fish, aquatic plants, and water quality are

most threatened. The lowest percentage of responses

for all three groups of respondents is for air quality.

Big Fish

Small Fish

Zooplankton (invertebrate/bugs)

Phytoplankton (Algae/Plants)

Decomposition



Table 21-4. White Sand Lake - Perceived to be Threatened by Aquatic Invasive Species

White Sand

Lake Bear River Lakes All Lakes

#

Respondents % #

Respondents % #

Respondents %

Native Fish 13 of 34 38% 75 of 171 44% 113 of 302 37%

Air Quality 0 of 34 0% 9 of 171 5% 16 of 302 5%

Aquatic Plants

9 of 34 27% 60 of 171 35% 92 of 302 31%

Wetlands 1 of 34 3% 31 of 171 18% 45 of 302 15%

Shoreline Plants

7 of 34 21% 47 of 171 28% 72 of 302 24%

Amphibians 2 of 34 6% 33 of 171 19% 48 of 302 16%

Water Quality

16 of 34 47% 83 of 171 49% 125 of 302 41%

Crustaceans 3 of 34 9% 32 of 171 19% 42 of 302 14%

Other 0 of 34 0% 5 of 171 3% 8 of 302 3%

None 7 of 34 21% 28 of 171 16% 72 of 302 24%

The same residents were also asked if they are

concerned about AIS getting into the lake. Table

21-5 shows that for 34 respondents for White Sand

Lake, 48% indicate extremely concerned, 39%

somewhat concerned, 7% not too concerned, 0%

not concerned at all, and 7% unsure. Data for all

three reference groups shows respondents have

great concern about AIS getting into the lakes.

Table 21-5. White Sand Lake - Concern about AIS Getting into the Lake

Lake # Respondents

Extremely

Somew

hat

Not Too

Not at All

Unsure

White Sand Lake 34 48% 39% 7% 0% 7%

Bear River Lakes 170 49% 41% 4% 0% 7%

All Lakes 294 42% 42% 9% 2% 6%

The same residents were asked if they have been

taking time to look for AIS in the lake. Table 21-6

shows that for 32 respondents affiliated with White

Sand Lake, 38% indicate not at all, 34% once a

season, 22% monthly, 6% weekly, and 0% daily.

The data for White Sand Lake is similar to the data

for the other lakes and shows that despite concern

for AIS, very few residents indicate they spend time

looking for AIS regularly.

Table 21-6. White Sand Lake - Time Spent Checking for AIS During Open Water Season

White Sand


#

Respondents % #

Respondents % #

Respondents %

Not at all 12 of 32 38% 66 of 161 41% 114 of 280 41%

Once a Season

11 of 32 34% 45 of 161 28% 85 of 280 30%

Once a Month

7 of 32 22% 30 of 161 19% 47 of 280 17%

Once a Week

2 of 32 6% 12 of 161 8% 21 of 280 8%

Once a Day 0 of 32 0% 8 of 161 5% 13 of 280 5%

Chemistry Category Chemistry is the science of matter and its properties

and composition with a particular focus on the

properties of chemical bonds. Dissolved oxygen, pH,

temperature, ionic strength, and suspended solids

each have a particular role in chemical bonding and

movement of chemicals within the lake.

Seasonal changes and water temperature of the

lake have an impact on the amount of dissolved

oxygen in the lake, important for fish respiration and

viability (see Section 9, Understanding Lake Data).

Dissolved oxygen in White Sand Lake during the

summer and late winter can reach below 5mg/L, the

minimum criteria for cool water fish (Figure 21-4).

Lake whitefish (Coregonus elupeaformis), for

example, is a cool water fish that is very susceptible

to temperature and dissolved oxygen. White Sand

Lake has had occasional die-offs of whitefish in the

shallow parts of the lake where the fish were

confined.



Figure 21-4. Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Values for White Sand Lake at Various Depths

Calcium for White Sand Lake as measured in 1990

was on average 3 mg/L, quite low, meaning White

Sand may be less susceptible to infestations of

Zebra Mussels.

Nutrients Category Based on Secchi, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll

data, White Sand Lake’s trophic state is

mesotrophic, meaning it has medium amounts of

nutrients to support a productive food web. A

productive food web includes a diversity of rooted

plants, macro-invertebrates (insects), and healthy

fish populations.

Phosphorus and nitrogen are two nutrients that play

key roles in limiting the growth of aquatic plants and

algae (see Section 9, Understanding Lake Data). Of

these, phosphorus is most critical to White Sand Lake.

Phosphorus originates from sources like human and

animal wastes, soil erosion, detergents, septic

systems and runoff from lawns. Phosphorus is the

limiting nutrient for White Sand Lake, meaning that

when the amount of phosphorus increases, the

probability of algae growth also increases. Total

phosphorus between 10 and 18ug/L is associated

with mesotrophic lakes and medium production of

biomass (Figure 21-5).

Figure 21-5. Total Phosphorus Concentration Trends in White Sand Lake

As the amount of algae increases, it is likely that the

amount of chlorophyll a increases. Chlorophyll a is a

green pigment present in all plant life and is

necessary for photosynthesis. The amount of

Chlorophyll a is a common measure of water quality

(Figure 21-6).

Figure 21-6. Chlorophyll a Concentration Trends in White Sand Lake

Figure 21-7 shows Secchi depth, total phosphorus,

and Chlorophyll a trends for White Sand Lake from

1979 until present. No significant change in water

quality is noted over this time period.

White Sand Lake's shoreline includes primarily

seasonal residences and properties. Though the

lake's shoreline has been almost completely

developed, the watershed overall remains forested.

More growth and development are expected,

however, on the Highway 47 corridor with the arrival

of new residents and requisite housing, roads,

businesses, and support services (Figure 21-8).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Sa

mp

le R

esu

lt (

ug

/L)

Date Sampled

Total Phosphorus (ug/L)

Average Total Phosphorus (11.20 ug/L)

Poor

Excellent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Sa

mp

le R

esu

lt (

ug

/L)

Date Sampled

Chlorophyll-a (ug/L)

Average Chlorophyll-a (3.17 ug/L)

PoorPoor

Excellent

Poor

Excellent



Figure 21-7. Secchi Depth, Total Phosphorus, and Chlorophyll a Trends for White Sand Lake

Figure 21-8. Phosphorus Loading Sources for White Sand Lake

Future amounts of phosphorus for White Sand Lake

can be anticipated by using a tool (Wisconsin Lake

Modeling Suite - WiLMS) designed to predict

phosphorus levels based on changes of land use in

the watershed (Figure 21-9).

Use of the WiLMS tool reveals that high and medium

disturbance areas characterized by the presence of

roads, homes, buildings, parking areas, and lawns,

yield the most total phosphorus per unit area.

Forested and wetland areas contribute less total

phosphorus as the runoff is slowed and allowed to

seep into the ground instead of washing into the lake

transporting sediment and phosphorus.

Figure 21-9. White Sand Lake Watershed Land Uses (Red – Developed; Blue – Open Water; Light Green – Wetland; Dark Green – Forest)

Habitat Category Habitat refers to a specific place that is inhabited by

a particular organism. Habitat includes all that the

organism needs to live, including physical factors

such as soil, temperature, light; and biotic factors,

such as the availability of food and shelter from

predators. The Habitat category includes substrate

(rock, sand, muck); aquatic plants; riparian zone

(shoreline); and littoral zone (shallow water along

shoreline).

Substrates are the surfaces on which organisms

grow, and rock, sand, and muck are the primary

substrates of a lake. Figure 21-10 shows the

distribution of White Sand Lake’s substrates.

Substrates often indicates the type of plants that will

grow in an area. The diversity of White Sand Lake’s

substrates is important to the health of the lake’s

fishery.

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

55.00

1979 1991 1992 1995 1996 1997 2001 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

TS

I

Secchi TSI

Total Phosphorus TSI

Chlorophyll-a TSI

Historical Average (42.63 - Mesotrophic)



Figure 21-10. Substrate Map of White Sand Lake

Aquatic plants (macrophytes) are plants that grow in

the water either submerged (all under water),

emergent (sticking out of the water), or floating leaf.

The north end of White Sand Lake has a large area

of dense submerged plants with the most

predominant being fern pondweed.

The Tribal Natural Resources Department assessed

the aquatic plants in White Sand Lake in 2010 by

following the Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources Protocol for conducting an aquatic plant

point intercept survey (see Section 8).

Table 21-7 presents the statistics associated with

the point intercept survey, and Figure 21-11 shows

plant locations and additional data. The table shows

that of the 681 sites sampled, vegetation was found

at 232 sites and 461 sites were shallower than the

maximum depth of plants, 20 feet. The total number

of plant species found (Taxonomic Richness -

Frequency of Occurrence) was 32 plants, and the

Simpson Diversity Index was 0.91. (See Section 8

for detailed explanations of the terms).

•••• Frequency of occurrence is an estimate of how

often a particular plant species is likely to be

found within a lake. The estimate is based on an

analysis of the data collected during the point

intercept survey.

•••• Simpson’s Diversity Index is a measure of how

diverse a plant community is in the lake. The index

is within a range of 0 to 1. The higher the value, the

more diverse the plant community is in a particular

lake. Plant diversity is an indicator of the lake’s

overall resiliency. Generally, a lake with high

species diversity is considered to be more stable

than a lake with low species diversity because it

has a greater ability to withstand environmental

fluctuations. A lake with a diverse plant community

is better equipped to compete with exotic

infestations than is a lake with low diversity.

Table 21-7. 2010 Aquatic Plant Community Statistics, White Sand Lake, Vilas County, WI

Aquatic Plant Community Statistics 2010

Total sites sampled 681

Total sites with vegetation 232

Total site shallower than max depth of plants 461

Frequency of occurrence at sites shallower than maximum depth of plants

50.33%

Simpson Diversity Index 0.91

Maximum Depth of Plants (Feet) 20

Taxonomic Richness (Number Taxa) 32

Average Number of Species per Site (sites less than max depth of plant growth)

0.95

Average Number of Species per Site (sites with vegetation)

1.90

* - There was one specie sampled that was not identified.



Figure 21-11. White Sand Lake 2010 Aquatic Point Intercept Survey



Table 21-8 lists the aquatic plants found in White

Sand Lake and shows the Floristic Quality Index

(FQI) for the lake. The FQI is the extent to which a

lake’s plant community is similar to that of a pristine

or undisturbed lake. The higher the floristic quality

index, the closer a lake is to an undisturbed system.

FQI is used to determine whether a lake’s plant

community is changing over time. It is also used to

determine the extent to which a lake’s plant

community is similar to other lakes in the same

ecoregion. The Floristic Quality Index for White Sand

Lake was 34.5, meaning most of the plants can

tolerate moderate disturbances (see Section 8).

Littoral Zone Habitat The littoral zone extends along the shoreline from

the water’s edge into the water to a depth of about

20 feet for White Sand Lake. This is the area where

most of the aquatic plants grow, providing shelter for

fish to reproduce and protect their young. The plants

also reduce erosion caused by waves, stabilizing the

shoreline.

To help determine the extent of residents’

perceptions of aquatic plants, the survey asked

residents if their enjoyment of the lakes was

impeded by the presence of aquatic plants in the

littoral zone. Table 21-9 shows that 45% of 98

residents from White Sand Lake indicate never,

39% rarely, 15% sometimes, 1% often, and 0%

always. When comparing the data for White Sand

Lake with the data for the other lakes, it appears that

aquatic plants are perceived to be somewhat of a

less impediment.

Residents were asked if they or members of their

households have tried to control aquatic plant

growth by removing plants from the lake. Table

21-10 shows that 85% of 94 respondents for White

Sand Lake indicate never, 12% some years, and 3%

yearly.

Residents were also asked if they or members of

their household have removed trees that have fallen

into White Sand Lake. Table 21-11 shows that 62%

of 95 respondents indicate never, 37% some years,

and 1% every year. The data for the respondents of

White Sand Lake are very similar to the data to the

other lakes. They rarely remove trees that have

fallen into the lake.

Residents were asked whether there is a need to

control aquatic plants for White Sand Lake. Table

21-12 shows that 10% of 94 respondents indicate

definitely no, 28% probably no, 22% probably yes,

and 7% definitely yes. Thirty-three percent indicate

they are not sure.

Residents were asked what should be done if an

aquatic invasive plant is found in the lake. Table

21-13 shows that for 34 respondents for White Sand

Lake, 24% indicate remove with chemicals, 24%

remove mechanically, 32% remove with biological

control, 50% remove by hand, 0% do nothing/no

treatment, and 41% indicate they need more

information. When considering the data for all

methods and lakes, it is evident that respondents

seem most comfortable with removing aquatic plants

by hand, and they want more information on the

topic.



Table 21-8. 2010 Floristic Quality Index, White Sand Lake, Vilas County, WI

Genus Species Common Name Coefficient of Conservatism C

Alisma triviale Northern water plantain 4

Bidens beckii Water marigold 8

Brasenia schreberi Watershield 6

Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail 3

Chara sp. Muskgrass 7

Eleocharis acicularis Needle spikerush 5

Eleocharis erythropoda Bald spikerush 3

Eleocharis robbinsii Robbins’ spikerush 10

Elodea canadensis Common waterweed 3

Eriocaulon aquaticum Pipewort 9

Heteranthera dubia Water star-grass 6

Isoetes sp. Quillwort 8

Juncus pelocarpus Brown-fruited rush 8

Myriophyllum sibiricum Northern water-milfoil 6

Myriophyllum tenellum Dwarf water-milfoil 10

Najas flexilis Slender naiad 6

Nymphaea odorata White water lily 6

Potamogeton amplifolius Large-leaf pondweed 7

Potamogeton epihydrus Ribbon-leaf pondweed 8

Potamogeton foliosus Leafy pondweed 6

Potamogeton gramineus Variable pondweed 7

Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed 6

Potamogeton pusillus Small pondweed 7

Potamogeton richardsonii Clasping-leaf pondweed 5

Potamogeton robbinsii Fern pondweed 8

Potamogeton strictifolius Stiff pondweed 8

Potamogeton zosteriformis Flat-stem pondweed 6

Schoenoplectus acutus Hard-stem bulrush 6

Stuckenia pectinata Sago pondweed 3

Utricularia vulgaris Common bladderwort 7

Vallisneria americana Wild celery 6

Total Species 32

Mean C 6.41

Floristic Quality Index (FQI) 34.5

Please note: There is no Coefficient of Conservatism for exotic species such as Eurasian Water-Milfoil or for species not identified to the species level (Sagittaria sp.).

Coefficient of Conservatism C

0-3 taxa found in wide variety of plant communities and very tolerant of disturbance.

4-6 taxa typically associated with specific plant communities and tolerate moderate disturbance.

7-8 taxa found in narrow range of plant communities and tolerate minor disturbance.

9-10 taxa restricted to a narrow range of synecological conditions, with low tolerance of disturbance.



Table 21-9. White Sand Lake - Whether Aquatic Plants Impede Enjoyment of the Lake

Lakes # Respondents

Always

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

% % % % %

White Sand Lake 98 0% 1% 15% 39% 45%

Bear River Lakes 556 3% 4% 16% 44% 33%

All Lakes 957 3% 7% 21% 40% 29%

Table 21-10. White Sand Lake - Removal of Aquatic Plants from the Lake

Lakes # Respondents

Yearly Some Years Never

% % %

White Sand Lake 94 3% 12% 85%

Bear River Lakes 458 6% 14% 80%

All Lakes 816 8% 18% 74%

Table 21-11. White Sand Lake - Removal of Fallen Trees from the Lake

Lakes # Respondents

Yearly Some Years Never

% % %

White Sand Lake 95 1% 37% 62%

Bear River Lakes 456 2% 27% 72%

All Lakes 814 1% 24% 75%

Table 21-12. White Sand Lake - Whether Aquatic Plant Control is Needed

White Sand


94

Respondents 503

Respondents 868

Respondents

Definitely yes 7% 8% 8%

Probably yes 22% 21% 19%

Probably no 28% 27% 29%

Definitely no 10% 9% 12%

Unsure 33% 35% 32%

Table 21-13. White Sand Lake - Preferences for Treating/Removing Aquatic Invasive Plants

White Sand


34

Respondents 171

Respondents 302

Respondents

Apply chemicals

24% 18% 15%

Use machines 24% 21% 19%

Bio-control 32% 25% 24%

No treatment 0% 3% 2%

Pull by hand 50% 49% 51%

Need more info.

41% 41% 41%

Riparian Zone Habitat The riparian zone is the land area along the

shoreline from the water’s edge inland. In general

this area is where most people access the lake via

stairs or paths. It sometimes includes boathouses,

storage sheds, homes, lawns, and other structures.

The riparian zone contributes the most nutrients

from erosion, fertilizers, septic systems, and general

habitat runoff. The area is critical in providing woody

for fish and leaf material for invertebrates, like the

dragon fly which lives a life cycle requiring both

water and land. It is also critical in providing habitat

to sustain other animals that rely on the lakes, like

song birds, eagles, loons, otter, deer, along with a

multitude of other creatures. A poor riparian habitat

often results in fewer species and excess nutrients,

while a good riparian habitat is replete with abundant

wildlife and healthy levels of nutrients.

To help determine the extent of residents’

perceptions of the riparian zone, the community

survey asked residents to describe the landscape in

the 35 foot buffer between the shoreline and their

house, and to identify what they believe should be in

an ideal landscape for the same area.

Table 21-14 lists several landscape features

ordinarily found in riparian zones. Residents were

asked to check those features that characterize the



current riparian landscape (Current) for their

property and then check those features that they

believe should be in an ideal riparian landscape

(Ideal). The table compares residents’ descriptions

of the current landscape with their perceptions of an

ideal landscape. For example, 34% of respondents

affiliated with White Sand Lake identify mowed grass

as a feature of the current buffer zone for their

property, yet 25% of them identify mowed grass in

an ideal landscape.

Table 21-14. White Sand Lake - Current Shoreline Landscaping vs Ideal Shoreline Landscaping

White Sand


99 Respondents

481 Respondents

847 Respondents

Current Ideal Current Ideal Current Ideal

Mowed grass 34% 25% 45% 30% 41% 28%

Rock terrace 26% 28% 19% 24% 16% 20%

Wild 47% 28% 44% 26% 44% 28%

Native prairie grasses

26% 26% 24% 27% 26% 24%

Wood terrace 6% 10% 4% 9% 5% 9%

Sand beach 18% 22% 25% 31% 26% 33%

Rain garden 0% 5% 2% 6% 2% 4%

Flower gardens 14% 12% 10% 10% 9% 9%

Shrubs 32% 22% 36% 25% 31% 22%

Wild with wood picked up

19% 24% 23% 21% 27% 22%

Trees 68% 48% 70% 50% 66% 47%

Something else 4% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3%

It doesn’t matter

8% 7% 7%

The current primary features identified by all three

respondent groups include mowed grass, wild,

shrubs, and trees. When characterizing the ideal

landscape, the same respondents prefer landscapes

characterized by less mowed grass and less wild

with fewer trees and shrubs, but more sand beach.

Residents were asked if they are interested in

learning about landscape designs tailored to help

protect the lakes and habitats. Table 21-15 shows

that of 89 respondents for White Sand Lake, 5%

indicate no interest, 37% little interest, 2% some

interest, 10% a lot of interest, and 46% don’t know.

Table 21-15. White Sand Lake - Interest in Learning About Landscape Design

White Sand


89

Respondents 443

Respondents 787

Respondents

No interest 5% 4% 4%

Little interest 37% 40% 40%

Some interest 2% 5% 6%

A lot of interest 10% 11% 11%

Don’t know 46% 40% 39%

Assessment of Riparian & Littoral Zones The Habitat Category reflects an assessment of

White Sand Lake’s aquatic plants, riparian zone

(shoreline), and littoral zone (shallow water along

shoreline). Comparisons are made with ecoregional

data, National Lake Survey thresholds and

WISCALM (Table 10-4).

Riparian cover includes cover-class estimates of

large and small diameter tree cover in the >5m high

vegetation layer; woody and non-woody vegetation

in the mid-layer (0.5 to 5 m); and woody, non-woody,

inundated, and barren classes in the ground cover

layer (<0.5 m) of the 10 lakeshore plots. Littoral

cover index excludes submerged aquatic

macrophytes, but increases the weighting of floating

and emergent macrophytes.

Table 21-16 compares the thresholds developed by

WISCALM for Plants and the National Lake Survey

for Riparian Zone and Littoral Zone to the index

value calculated based on the assessment of White

Sand Lake's habitat.



Table 21-16. Index Values for Environmental Assessment Parameters

Indicator Assessment

Index Value

Water Quality Assessment Thresholds

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Plants 50.33 Below 79.7%

89.7% - 79.8%

89.8% - 94.8%

100% - 94.9%

Riparian Zone

1.25 >0.8074 0.5906-0.8074

<0.5906

Littoral Zone 1.46 >0.7001 0.4156-0.7001

<.4156

To help learn about residents’ perceptions on habitat

and environmental change, the community survey

asked residents if elements of the habitat have been

changing over time. Table 21-17 shows the

responses for White Sand Lake, the Bear project

lakes, and the other lakes. The data are very similar

for all three response groups. The predominant

response is no change.

Bacteria Category Bacteria is assessed based on a measure of the

most probable number (MPN) of E. coli in 100

milliliters of water. E. coli is the abbreviated name of

the bacterium in the family Enterobacteriaceae,

named Escherichia coli. The presence of E. coli in

our intestines is normal. The presence of E. coli in

swimming areas indicates that other microorganisms

(including the ones that could causes illness) that

live in the gastrointestinal track could also be

present. The water quality criterion to protect human

health, 235 MPN, is based on an illness rate of eight

per 1,000 swimmers. White Sand Lake does not

have a public swimming beach so bacteria is not

assessed for White Sand Lake.

Generally, the Tribe is responsible for septic

systems on property owned by the Tribe, and Vilas

County is responsible for septic systems on property

on non-Tribal land. Currently, all septic systems

Table 21-17. White Sand Lake - Perceptions of Environmental Change

Shorelines Wetlands Streams Air Forests Grasslands All Environment

White Sand Lake

#Respondents 94 90 89 94 93 90 95

Improving 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 4%

No change 52% 53% 46% 73% 53% 43% 52%

Worsening 33% 9% 9% 10% 26% 12% 28%

Don’t know 13% 38% 45% 16% 18% 44% 16%

Bear River Lakes

#Respondents 534 522 513 522 524 513 526

Improving 5% 3% 1% 3% 4% 2% 5%

No change 52% 51% 42% 68% 52% 48% 54%

Worsening 30% 12% 11% 8% 24% 10% 23%

Don’t know 13% 34% 46% 22% 20% 40% 18%

All Lakes

#Respondents 923 901 873 909 910 882 903

Improving 4% 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 4%

No change 56% 55% 45% 71% 57% 52% 59%

Worsening 28% 12% 9% 5% 20% 7% 19%

Don’t know 13% 31% 45% 21% 19% 40% 18%

Lakeshore habitat is the biggest problem in the

nation’s lakes; over one-third exhibit poor Shoreline

condition. Poor biological health is three times more

likely in lakes with poor lakeshore habitat.30



under the jurisdiction of Vilas County are on a three-

year pumping/inspection schedule.

Residents were asked how often they have their

septic tank inspected. Table 21-18 shows that for 63

respondents of White Sand Lake, 0% indicate they

do not own the property, 86% at least every three

years, 0% no septic tank, 10% more than every

three years, and 5% no inspection.

Table 21-18. White Sand Lake - Septic Tank Inspection

White Sand


63

Respondents 360

Respondents 609

Respondents

Do not own property

0% 7% 4%

At least every 3 years

86% 67% 71%

No tank 0% 9% 6%

More than every 3 years

10% 12% 12%

No inspection 5% 6% 7%

Aesthetics Category The Aesthetics Category includes data and

information on water quality, color, and turbidity. It

also reflects an assessment of reports received by

the Tribal Natural Resources Department for White

Sand Lake on the presence of oil, grease, nuisance

aquatic plants, trash, and debris.

Reports and concerns submitted by residents to the

Tribal Natural Resources Department on the turbidity

and color of the lake water are not uncommon.

The extent to which lake water appears to be clear

or murky is a function of the total amount of solids

that are suspended in the water. Generally, the

greater the amount of suspended solids in the water,

the murkier it appears.

The major source of turbidity in open water away

from shore is typically phytoplankton (algae). Closer

to shore, suspended matter also comes from

sources such as septic systems, sewage treatment

plants, storm runoff, shoreline erosion and lake

bottom sediments.

The major effect of turbidity noticed by lake property

residents might simply be aesthetic - people do not

like to look at dirty water. High levels of turbidity can,

however, cause major problems by inhibiting the

penetration of light, leading to the suffocation of

larvae, damage to fish gills, fish reproduction, and

loss of aquatic plants and habitat.

Turbidity or cloudy water can be measured in a

variety of ways. A method commonly used in Lac du

Flambeau to measure water clarity is to employ a

Secchi disk. The 8-inch diameter disk with white and

black quadrants is tied to a line and lowered slowly

down into the water. The depth at which the white

quadrants are no longer visible is taken as a

measure of the transparency of the water. This

information provides a way to look at changes in

water clarity over a long period of time. Secchi data

also correlates to total phosphorus and trophic state

index data. Figure 21-12 shows that over the past

22 years no significant change in water clarity has

occurred for White Sand Lake.



The color of lake water reflects the type and amount

of dissolved organic chemicals it contains.

Transparent water with a low accumulation of

dissolved materials appears blue and indicates low

productivity. Dissolved organic matter, such as

humus, peat or decaying plant matter, can produce

a yellow or brown color. Some algae produce a

reddish or deep yellow color. Water rich in

phytoplankton and other algae usually appears

green.

Volunteers for White Sand Lake have been

subjectively observing and recording the lake’s

water color since 1995 as part of the WDNR’s

Citizen Lake Monitoring Network. Table 21-19

summarizes the observations for the North location

and Table 21-20 for the Deep Hole location. The

numbers preceding the colors indicate the number of

dates of observation. For the North location, blue

was recorded 19 times, green 5 times, and brown 1

time. For the Deep Hole location (Table 21-20), blue

was recorded 23 times, green 12 times, and brown 1

time. The specific dates of the observations are

available on the Citizen Lake Monitoring website at

http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/clmn/. The website also

shows that despite the variations in water color, the

observers reported that, with very few exceptions,

the water appeared to be clear as opposed to

murky.

Table 21-19. White Sand Lake North - Lake Water Color

Year May June July August Sept Oct

2007 1 Blue 1 Blue 1 Green

1 Blue 1 Green

1 Green

2008 1 Green 1 Blue 1 Brown

2009 1 Green 1 Blue 1 Blue

2010 1 Blue 1 Blue 1 Blue 1 Blue

2011 1 Blue 1 Blue 1 Blue

2012 1 Blue 1 Blue 1 Blue 1 Green


Figure 21-12. Secchi Depth Trends for White Sand Lake

0

5

10

15

20

25

6/1

1/1

99

1

5/2

0/1

99

2

9/8

/19

95

5/2

4/1

99

6

6/1

0/1

99

6

6/2

7/1

99

6

7/2

1/1

99

6

8/2

5/1

99

6

9/1

8/1

99

6

6/1

/19

97

6/2

1/1

99

7

7/1

3/1

99

7

8/1

1/1

99

7

9/2

7/1

99

7

6/1

3/2

00

5

7/2

0/2

00

5

8/5

/20

05

8/1

2/2

00

5

8/2

8/2

00

5

9/8

/20

05

5/2

2/2

00

6

7/2

4/2

00

6

8/2

2/2

00

6

9/2

6/2

00

6

6/2

0/2

00

7

7/1

6/2

00

7

8/2

2/2

00

7

10

/4/2

00

7

6/1

9/2

00

8

8/2

7/2

00

8

6/1

7/2

00

9

8/1

8/2

00

9

7/2

1/2

01

0

9/1

9/2

01

0

7/2

4/2

01

1

6/2

4/2

01

2

8/2

0/2

01

2

7/3

1/2

01

3

9/2

/20

13

Are

a L

ak

es

Ave

rag

e

Eco

-re

gio

n A

vera

ge

Se

cch

i D

ep

th (

Ft)

Date Sampled

Secchi (Feet)

Average Secchi (15.24 ft)

The Secchi disk was created by Father Pietro Angelo Secchi

in 1865. He was a priest, astronomer, and professor of

physics who taught for a time at Georgetown University in

Washington, DC.31



Table 21-20. White Sand Lake Deep Hole - Lake Water Color

Year May June July August Sept Oct


2 Green 3 Green



1 Green 1 Blue

2006 1 Green 2 Blue 1 Blue 1 Green

2 Green 1 Blue

2007 1 Blue 1 Brown

2013 2 Blue


2 Green 3 Green

In order to learn about residents’ perceptions of the

lake water quality, the community survey posed a

few questions about water quality. Residents were

asked to describe the current water quality of White

Sand Lake and whether they believe that quality has

been changing.

Table 21-21 shows that 57% of 100 respondents for

White Sand Lake indicate that the current water

quality of the lake is excellent, 42% good, 1% fair,

0% poor, 0% very poor, and 0% are unsure.

Respondents have a very positive perception about

the current quality of White Sand Lake’s water.

Table 21-21. White Sand Lake - Perception of Current Water Quality

Lakes # Respondents

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

Unsure

% % % % % %

White Sand Lake

100 57% 42% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Bear River Lakes

554 38% 49% 7% 3% 0.2% 3%

All Lakes 956 34% 53% 7% 3% 0.1% 3%

The data for White Sand Lake regarding perceptions

of current water quality are reasonably consistent

with the data for the other lakes identified in the

table. Table 21-22 shows that 1% of 95 respondents

for White Sand Lake indicated that water has been

improving, 66% no change, 16% worsening, and

17% are unsure. Again, the data for White Sand

Lake are reasonably consistent with the data for the

other lakes noted in the table.

Table 21-22. White Sand Lake - Perception of Change in Water Quality

Lakes # Respondents

Improving

No Change

Worsening

Unsure

% % % %

White Sand Lake 95 1% 66% 16% 17%

Bear River Lakes 519 1% 60% 17% 22%

All Lakes 719 2% 62% 16% 20%

Fish Tissue Category & Fishery The Fish Tissue Category refers to the amount of

mercury in fish flesh as compared to Water Quality

Standards. Larger edible fish have more mercury in

the fish flesh than what is protective for human

health concerns. Tribal Water Quality Standards are

protective for subsistence fish consumption and the

criterion to protect human health is 0.16 PPM.

Anthropogenic (meaning caused by human activity)

sources of mercury are mainly from coal fired

electric utilities emissions that ultimately enter the

lake and watershed via rainwater. The chemistry of

Lac du Flambeau Lakes is such that mercury

becomes mobilized into the food chain accumulating

in larger fish at the top of the food chain. Reductions

in mercury emissions on coal fired power plants

have helped to reduce mercury in the rain as seen in

Figure 21-13. A comparison of 1991 data to 2007

data shows a trend of reduction, yet more than what

is protective for human health.



Figure 21-13. Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations vs Fish Length

White Sand Lake’s fishery supports both

subsistence and sport fishing. The lake’s fishery

includes panfish such as bluegill and black crappie

and gamefish like smallmouth and largemouth bass,

northern pike, musky, and walleye. The lake also

includes lake sturgeon.

The Tribal Hatchery has a history of stocking White

Sand Lake, particularly with walleye, musky, and

sturgeon. Table 21-23 shows the numbers of these

fish that have been stocked in White Sand Lake

from 2003–2012.

Table 21-23. Number of Fish Stocked During 2003–2012 in White Sand Lake (1,195 acres)

Year

Walleye Sturgeon Musky

Fry Fingerlings Fingerlings Fry

2012 1,500,000 7,497

2011 1,500,000 43,512 50 10,000

2010 1,500,000 18,310

2009 1,500,000 7,625 100 50,000

2008

15,912

35,000

2007 1,500,000 33,312 169

2006 1,600,000 19,271

2005 1,500,000 24,000 593

2004 600,000 19,250

2003 400,000 11,250

In order to determine residents’ perceptions on the

quality of fishing and whether that quality has been

changing, this survey asked residents a few questions

about the fishery. Residents were asked if they have

fished or speared on White Sand Lake within the past

ten years. Seventy-six of 102 (75%) respondents for

White Sand Lake responded affirmatively.

These respondents were then asked to identify the

type of fishing they employed. Of those who

responded, 96% indicate open water hook and line

fishing, 24% ice fishing, 0% spearing, and 0% netting.

The residents who have fished or speared within the

past ten years were asked to describe the current

quality of fishing on the lake, and how, if at all, the

quality of fishing on the lake has changed during the

past ten years.

Table 21-24 shows that of the 71 White Sand Lake

residents who responded about the current quality of

fishing, 1% indicate excellent, 25% good, 52% fair,

11% poor, and 9% very poor. One percent indicates

unsure. A higher percentage of respondents for

White Sand Lake indicate the current quality of

fishing is fair to good as compared to respondents of

the other lakes.

Table 21-24. White Sand Lake - Perceptions of Current Quality of Fishing

White Sand


71

Respondents 397

Respondents 750

Respondents

Excellent 1% 5% 5%

Good 25% 34% 34%

Fair 52% 42% 44%

Poor 11% 13% 11%

Very Poor 9% 4% 4%

Unsure 1% 3% 2%

Regarding whether the quality of fishing has

changed during the past ten years, Table 21-25

shows that of 75 White Sand Lake respondents, 7%

indicate fishing has been improving, 29% no

change, 49% worsening, and 15% unsure. A higher

percentage of respondents for White Sand Lake

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

10 15 20 25 30

Hg

(P

PM

)

Length (in)

Mercury in Fish Flesh

2007

1991



indicate the quality of fishing has been worsening as

compared to respondents of the other lakes.

Table 21-25. White Sand Lake - Perceptions of Change in Fishing Quality

White Sand


75

Respondents 414

Respondents 750

Respondents

Improving 7% 9% 8%

No Change 29% 28% 31%

Worsening 49% 42% 42%

Unsure 15% 21% 20%

Lake Water Levels Lake levels fluctuate naturally due to precipitation

and evaporation, both of which may vary widely from

season to season and year to year. Low levels may

cause stressful conditions for fish and increase the

number of nuisance aquatic plants. High water

levels can boost the amounts of nutrients from runoff

of flooded lakeshore soils. Another consequence of

fluctuating water levels is shoreline erosion.

White Sand Lake is artificially stabilized by a static

dam on the out flow at the beginning of Hutton’s

Creek.

Figure 21-14. Lake Water Level Fluctuations During 2012-2014

Volunteers from Lac du Flambeau have been

subjectively observing and noting lake water levels

through the WDNR’s Citizen Lake Monitoring

Network for many years (Tables 21-26 and 21-27),

while in 2012 the Tribal Natural Resources

Department began to collect water level data

systematically for selected lakes. With assistance from

North Lakeland Discovery Center, Vilas County

Association of Lakes, and Town Lakes Committee,

monitoring equipment was installed and calibrated

on sites at Little Crawling Stone Lake, Fence Lake,

Flambeau Lake, Ike Walton Lake, and White Sand

Lake (Figure 21-14). The equipment at the Flambeau

Lake site is being monitored by the Tribal Resources

Department while equipment at the other sites is being

monitored by volunteer lakefront property owners.

Table 21-26. White Sand Lake North - Number of Observations of Lake Water Levels

Year Low Normal High

2007 4 2

2008

2 2

2009 2 1

2010 1 3

2011

2 1

2012 1 2 1

2013

2 1

Table 21-27. White Sand Lake Deep Hole - Number of Observations of Lake Water Levels

Year Low Normal High

2005 9 3

2006 7 1

2007 2

2013 2

Other Survey Results for White Sand Lake Residents affiliated with White Sand Lake who

responded to the survey in 2012 shared their

perceptions on several topics in addition to those

already presented in this section.

Lake Level Monitoring

White Sand Lake, WI

Drainage Lake Type

Prelimary Results

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2012 2013 2014

Year

Devia

tio

n f

rom

Lo

ng

term

Avera

ge

(cm

)



Activities & Watercraft From a list of activities (fishing excluded), residents

were asked to identify those in which they most

often choose to participate. The activities most often

identified by residents affiliated with White Sand

Lake include relaxing and enjoying nature (80%),

swimming (91%), and motor-boating (79%). The

activities least often identified include sailing (20%),

ricing (2%), and trapping (1%).

From a list of different types of watercraft, residents

were asked to identify those which they and

members of their household use most often. The

watercraft most often identified by residents affiliated

with White Sand Lake include motorboats with more

than 25 hp (75%), pontoon boats (47%), and canoes

or kayaks (61%). Watercraft least often identified

includes row boats (22%), jet skis (21%), and

sailboats (21%). One percent of the respondents

indicate they and members of their household do not

use watercraft.

Issues of Concern From a list of 16 concerns, residents affiliated with

White Sand Lake were asked to identify three

concerns about the lake that they believe are of

most concern. For those who responded, Table

21-28 shows the three issues of greatest concern

include aquatic invasive species (45%), loss of fish

habitat (25%), and degradation of water quality

(26%). The three issues of least concern include

noise (5%), loss of wildlife habitat (8%), and

degradation of native aquatic plants (9%). The items

on the list are of no concern to 17% of the

respondents.

Table 21-28. White Sand Lake - Lake Issues of Most Concern

White Sand


102 Respondents

576 Respondents

1074 Respondents

Algae bloom 18% 17% 16%

Light pollution 9% 10% 8%

Shoreline runoff 18% 14% 12%

Aquatic invasive species 45% 42% 35%

Loss of fish habitat 25% 25% 22%

Water quality degradation 26% 27% 23%

Boat traffic 15% 16% 15%

Loss of shoreline 12% 13% 10%

Septic discharge 21% 18% 15%

Degradation of native aquatic plants

9% 11% 9%

Loss of wildlife habitat 8% 10% 10%

Excessive aquatic plant growth

11% 12% 10%

Noise pollution 5% 6% 6%

Shoreline development 14% 13% 11%

Excessive fishing 15% 12% 10%

Shoreline erosion 24% 18% 10%

Not concerned about any of these

17% 17% 19%

Interest in Attending Workshops Residents were asked if they have an interest to

attend workshops on a variety of topics related to

the lakes and habitats. Table 21-29 shows the

largest percentages of responses for all three

response groups include identifying AIS and

identifying aquatic plants. Respondents from of

White Sand Lake also show interest in controlling

purple loosestrife and limnology.



Table 21-29. White Sand Lake - Interest in Attending Workshops

White Sand


102 Respondents

576 Respondents

1074 Respondents

Preventing AIS 14% 13% 11%

Starting a lake association

0% 5% 14%

Controlling Purple Loosestrife

22% 17% 14%

Identifying AIS 37% 42% 38%

Lake Stewardship 13% 13% 11%

Identifying aquatic plants

33% 38% 36%

Limnology 22% 22% 20%

Other 5% 5% 4%

No interest 29% 28% 28%

Town Website Residents were asked how often, if at all, they check

the town’s website to gets information about the

Town Lakes Committee, such as newsletters,

meeting agendas, and information on AIS. Table

21-30 shows that of 95 respondents for White Sand

Lake, 2% indicate often, 14% sometimes, 35%

rarely, and 50% never.

Table 21-30. White Sand Lake - Accessing the Town’s Website

White Sand


95

Respondents 541

Respondents 938

Respondents

Never 50% 60% 63%

Rarely 35% 26% 23%

Sometimes 14% 14% 12%

Often 2% 1% 1%

Accessing Information Residents were asked where they would most likely

go to get information about environmental issues.

Table 21-31 shows that residents are most likely to

seek information from the Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources, the Tribal Natural Resources

Department, and the Town Lakes Committee.

Table 21-31. White Sand Lake - Accessing Sources of Information for AIS

White Sand

Lake Bear River Lakes

All Lakes

102

Respondents 576

Respondents 1074

Respondents

Tribal Natural Resources Department

27% 37% 31%

Town Lakes Committee 28% 21% 18%

Wisconsin DNR 55% 61% 59%

LdF Town Hall 20% 19% 19%

Tribal Main Office 10% 7% 5%

Other 13% 9% 9%

White Sand Lake Association32 Volunteer organizations in Wisconsin have long

played an important role in protecting the lakes from

declining water quality and other human impacts. To

address such issues, residents on Lake Geneva

established the first lake association in Wisconsin

1898.

In July, 2004, 76 residents representing about 50

families on White Sand Lake decided to establish

their own lake association at a meeting held at

Dillman's Resort. Education and communication

were identified as the new organization's primary

purposes.

The following June, the association held its first

business meeting, again at Dillman's. A Board of

Directors and officers were identified, by-laws were

adopted, and dues were set at $20 per family.

A resident from White Sand Lake and member on the original

planning committee for the White Sand Lake Association, John

Bartosz, was instrumental in establishing the Lac du Flambeau

Town Lakes Committee, indeed serving as the organization's

first chair. The White Sand Lake Association has been

represented on the Lac du Flambeau Town Lakes Committee

since its inception in 2005.

Several lake association members have attended various training

sessions conducted by the Lac du Flambeau Town Lakes

Committee and help monitor the public boat landing and



shorelines for AIS, testing for and reporting on water quality,

depth, and lake water levels each season.

Several association members assisted in the survey of the aquatic

plant life of White Sand Lake in preparation of the Bear River

Comprehensive Lake Management Plan.

Relying in part on WDNR grant funds, the White Sand lake

Association hired watercraft inspector in 2014.

Setting the Pace & White Sand Lake In summary, White Sand Lake has a very healthy

ecosystem with many strong qualities. The primary

challenge is ensure these attributes do not degrade

from their current conditions. At the same time, there

is room for improvement, particularly with respect to

improving the lake’s habitat, monitoring the

presence of mercury in fish tissue, and guarding

against the arrival of aquatic invasive species.

The following tables, Setting the Pace, constitute a

long-term action plan to maintain or improve the

overall health of White Sand Lake. The plan includes

six goals with supporting objectives and activities.

The goals include:

I. Preserve or Improve Current Water Quality.

II. Prevent Infestations of Aquatic Invasive

Species.

III. Control or Reduce the Spread of Aquatic

Invasive Species.

IV. Broaden Residents' Understanding of

Swimmer's Itch.

V. Reduce User Conflicts.

VI. Strengthen or Increase Collaborations.



Table 21-32. Setting the Pace - White Sand Lake

Goal I - Preserve or Improve Current Lake Water Quality

Objective A - Provide residents with opportunities to learn about the current lake water quality

and how they can help preserve or improve it.

Potential Activities Facilitator(s) Evaluation

Limitations

Timeframe Limitations Cost Estimates

1. Attend CLMN Workshops Tribe, TLC, Lake Assoc.

# Attendees Availability of workshops & support of Tribe, Town, Lake Associations

$50 per attendee Annual

2. Attend CBCW Workshops Tribe, TLC, Lake Assoc.

# Attendees Availability of workshops & support of Tribe, Town, Lake Associations


3. Teach at After-School Program Tribe/TLC Pre & Post Survey Support of Tribe & School, availability of volunteers

$35 per volunteer Annual Spring Term

4. Host Limnology/Ecology Workshops

Tribe/TLC # Attendees, workshop evaluation

Availability of presenters, # registrants

$100 per attendee Every 2-3 years

5. Host Lake Steward Workshops TLC/Tribe # Attendees, workshop evaluation

Availability of presenters, # registrants, support of partnering organizations

$300 per registrant (based on 50 registrants)

Every 3-4 years

6. Host Landscaping/Shoreline Habitat Workshops

Tribe/TLC # Attendees, workshop evaluation

Availability of presenters, # registrants, support of Tribe, Town

$100 per attendee Every 2-3 years

7. Update Webpages Tribe, TLC, Lake Assoc.

# Clicks Support of Tribe, Town, Lake Associations

Variable Ongoing

8. Host Lakes Fest Tribe # of Attendees Support of Tribe, presenters, attendees

$7,000 per Event Annual





Objective B - Continue monitoring lake water quality.


Limitations


1. Improve or establish standards for assessing aesthetics

Tribe/WDNR Implementation of improved/new standards Report Card: Aesthetics

Support of Tribe & WDNR $30,000 to establish

Ongoing once established

2. Collect data on lake water levels, temperature, chemistry, clarity, nutrients

Tribe/TLC/ Lake Assoc

Data Reports Report Card: Biology, Chemistry, Nutrients

Support of Tribe, WDNR, Volunteers

$20,000 Annual

3. Expand & implement schedule of Point Intercept Surveys

Tribe WDNR Verification Report Card: Biology, Habitat

Support of Tribe, WDNR $7,000 average per lake

Ongoing

4. Conduct shoreline sweeps Tribe/TLC/ Lake Assoc

CLMN Data Sheets Report Card: Biology, Habitat, Aesthetics

Support of Tribe, TLC, Volunteers

$12 per hour, .58 per mile

Annual

5. Conduct individual property sweeps


CLMN Data Sheets Report Card: Biology, Habitat, Aesthetics

Support of Tribe, TLC, Property Owners

$48 per property 12 per season

6. Collect data on bio-accumulative pollutants (fish tissue)

Tribe Database Report Card: Tissue

Support of Tribe $20,000 Annual

7. Collect & analyze data on stream flow

Tribe/USGS Report Card: Flow Support of Tribe & USGS $16,000 Annual

8. Expand participation in CLMN Tribe/TLC/ Lake Assoc.

CLMN Data Sheets Biology, Chemistry, Nutrients

Support of TLC, Lake Associations


Ongoing

9. Collect & analyze data on weather/climate

Tribe/ Volunteers

List of sources Support of Tribe $10,000 Annual

10. Expand taking core samples from the lakes

Tribe Reports of data Report Card: Biology, Habitat

Support of Tribe $50,000-$100,000 for all lakes

One time lake

11. Identify impact of the operation of motor vehicles and motorboats on the lakes

Tribe Report of study Report Card: Aesthetics

Support of Tribe $10,000-50,000 per study

To be determined

12. Identify impact of forestry clear-cutting practices on the lakes

Tribe Report of Study Report Card: Habitat, Nutrients

Support of Tribe $20,000-70,000 To be determined

13. Consider monitoring species of concern, like frogs, bats, etc.


Document discussions Support of Tribe, TLC, Lake Associations


To be determined

14. Consider maintaining/expanding propagation of wild rice

Tribe To be determined Support of Tribe Availability of resources

To be determined To be determined

15. Consider monitoring for spiny waterflea


To be determined Support of Tribe, TLC, Lake Associations






Objective C - Minimize impact from development.


Limitations


1. Identify shoreline restoration needs

Tribe Report of Study Report Card: Habitat, Nutrients

Funding $10,000 for five lakes

Ongoing

2. Establish shoreline restoration demonstration project

Tribe Finished project Report Card: Habitat

Funding, Available shoreline $10,000 per 100 feet of shoreline

2015

3. Restore selected shorelines Tribe Finished projects Report Card: Habitat

Land ownership, jurisdictions $10,000 per 100 feet of shoreline

2015, ongoing

4. Encourage lake home shoreline restorations

Vilas Co/Tribe Finished projects Report Card: Habitat

Support of Tribe, County, & Landowners

$10,000 per 100 feet of shoreline

Ongoing

5. Install erosion controls bank stabilization

Tribe/Vilas Co Finished projects Report Card: Habitat

Support of Tribe, Federal funding

$3,000 per erosion site

Ongoing

6. Review & suggest best management practices on all land-disturbing projects

Tribe Report of study Report Card: Habitat


$10,000-$50,000 Annual

7. Review & comment on all storm water projects

Tribe Reports/documents Report Card: Habitat, Nutrients, Bacteria


$10,000-$50,000 Annual

8. Review & comment on all National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permits

Tribe Reports/documents Report Card: Habitat, Nutrients, Bacteria


$10,000-$50,000 Annual

9. Determine best alternative for Waste Water Treatment Plant

Tribe Report of Study Report Card: Habitat, Nutrients, Bacteria


$200,000 per review

Ongoing

10. Construct new facility for waste water treatment

Tribe New facility Report Card: Habitat, Nutrients, Bacteria


$1,000,000 - $5,000,000

Ongoing

11. Work with Planning and Land Department for future low-impact development initiatives

Tribe Report Report Card: Habitat, Nutrients, Chemistry

Support of Tribe Variable To be determined

12. Review & update water quality standards and shoreline codes

Tribe Revised documents Report Card: All categories


$50,000 per review

Triennial

13. Enforce inspection schedule for all development initiatives

Tribe Completion reports Report Card: All categories


$20,000 Annual

14. Conducting septic inspections Tribe/Vilas Co Report of inspections Report Card: Nutrients Bacteria

Support of Tribe, Vilas County $150 per unit Ongoing

15. Evaluating Dam Permit Applications

Tribe, WDNR, Army Corps of Engineers

# permits evaluated Report card: habitat, lake levels

Jurisdiction, Federal funding Variable Ongoing

16. Review & comment on all potential rules or permits regulating mercury emissions

Tribe Reports/documents Report Card: Fish Tissue


$10,000-$50,000 Annual




Goal II - Prevent Infestations of Aquatic Invasive Species

Objective A - Provide the public with opportunities to learn about Aquatic Invasive Species

and how to prevent their introduction.


Limitations


1. Coordinate TLC/Tribal planning with lake associations’ planning

TLC/Tribe Lake Assoc

Partner feedback Support of TLC, Tribe & lake associations

Volunteers @ $12/hour & .58/mile

Annual

2. Encourage volunteers to attend training sessions provided by the Clean Boats Clean Waters (CBCW) program

TLC/Tribe/ Lake Assoc

Identify number of attendees

Availability of workshops, volunteers, & help from lake associations


3. Periodically offer workshops locally on how to identify and prevent AIS

TLC Agendas, participant evaluations

Availability of presenters and registrants, & help from lake associations


4. Encourage volunteers to attend training sessions provided by the Citizen Lake Monitoring Network (CLMN)

TLC/Tribe Identify number of attendees

Availability of workshops, volunteers, & help from lake associations


5. Disseminate information via media, including Town, Tribal, and Lake Association websites


Copies of releases Availability of writer(s) Variable Ongoing

6. Highlight AIS and prevention in documents produced locally, such as newsletters, brochures


Copies of documents Availability of writers Volunteers @ $12/hour & .58/mile

Ongoing

7. Highlight AIS prevention at landings through signage & distribution of educational materials


Periodic review of signage Availability of new signage & WDNR education materials

Cost of signage, volunteers @ $12/hour, .58/mile, WDNR materials

Ongoing

8. Identify local Key Communicators who will speak about AIS at community events

TLC/Tribe List of individuals Availability of communicators Volunteers @ $12/hour, .58/mile

Annual

9. Ask resorts & select businesses to distribute AIS information

TLC/Lake Associations

List of accepting business Availability of materials, approval of businesses

Volunteers @ $12/hour, .58/mile, WDNR materials

Annual

10. Continue hosting the Lake Steward Workshop

TLC/Tribe Participant evaluation Availability of presenters, # registrants, support of partnering organizations

$300/registrant (based on 50 registrants)

Every 3-4 years




Goal II - Prevent Infestations of Aquatic Invasive Species

Objective B - Provide the public with opportunities to actively and purposefully look for Aquatic Invasive Species.


Limitations




Partner feedback Support of TLC, Tribe & lake associations

Volunteers @ $12/hour, .58/mile

Annual

2. Organize and support whole-lake shoreline sweeps


# sweeps, participant feedback Report Card: Biology

Support of TLC, Tribe & Lake Associations

$12/hour, .58/mile, supplies @ $300/lake

Annual

3. Support establishing system of personal property sweeps

TLC/Lake Assoc

# properties, participant feedback Report Card: Biology

Support of TLC & Lake Associations


Annual

4. Inspect watercraft at landings Tribe/TLC/ Lake Assoc

# inspectors, # hours inspection Report Card: Biology

Support of TLC, Tribe, Lake Associations, Volunteers, WDNR

$12/hour, .58/mile, supplies @ $200/landing

Annual

5. Coordinate SCUBA diving/ snorkeling sweeps near landings

TLC/Tribe Log Report Card: Biology

Support of Tribe & volunteers $500/season Annual

6. Provide convenient drop-off points on each lake for suspected AIS samples

TLC/Lake Assoc

# participants Report Card: Biology

Support of TLC & lake associations

$100 per lake Annual

7. Assist Lake Associations with grant applications for hiring watercraft inspectors

TLC # attendees, workshop evaluation Report Card: Biology

Support of TLC & Lake Associations





Goal III - Control or Reduce the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species

Objective A - Provide the public with opportunities to learn about local infestations of Aquatic Invasive Species

and how they can help control or reduce their spread.


Limitations




Lake association feedback Support of TLC & lake associations


Annual

2. Encourage volunteers to attend training sessions provided by the Clean Boats Clean Waters (CBCW) program


# of attendees Availability of workshops, volunteers, & help from lake associations


3. Offer TLC workshops on how to identify and control or reduce AIS

TLC Agendas, participant evaluations

Availability of presenters and registrants, & help from lake associations


4. Encourage volunteers to attend training sessions provided by the Citizen Lake Monitoring Network (CLMN)


# of attendees Availability of workshops, volunteers, & help from lake associations


5. Disseminate information via media, including Town, Tribal, and Lake Association websites


Copies of releases Availability of writer(s) Volunteers @ $12/hour, .58/mile

Ongoing

6. Highlight AIS and prevention in documents produced locally, such as newsletters, brochures


Copies of documents Availability of writers Volunteers @ $12/hour, .58/mile, printing

Ongoing

7. Highlight AIS control at landings through signage & distribution of educational materials


Periodic review of signage Availability of new signage Cost of signage, volunteers @ $12/hour, .58/mile, WDNR materials

Annual

8. Identify local Key Communicators who will speak about AIS at community events


List of individuals Availability of communicators Volunteers @ $12/hour, .58/mile

Annual

9. Ask resorts & select businesses to distribute AIS information


List of accepting businesses

Availability of materials & approval of businesses


Annual

10. Continue hosting the Lake Steward Workshop

TLC/Tribe Participant evaluation Availability of presenters, # registrants, support of partnering organizations

$300 per registrant (based on 50 registrants)

Triennial





Objective B - Reduce the scope of existing infestations of purple loosestrife

and minimize the spread of the infestations to new locations.


Limitations


1. Establish Action Team & Action Plan

TLC Written Plan Support of TLC/Tribe/Town $12/hour. .58/mile Annual

2. Encourage lake association participation

TLC/Lake Assoc

# Lake Associations involved

Support of Lake Associations $12/hour, .58/mile Annual

3. Continue inter-agency relationships on Purple Loosestrife (Tribe, WDNR, Public School)

TLC/Lake Assoc

Survey agencies Support of agencies Variable Annual

4. Raise & distribute beetles TLC/Lake Assoc

150 plants & 200,000 beetles Report Card: Biology, Habitat

Support from Tribe, WDNR, school, & availability of volunteers, materials, roots & seed beetles

$3,000-5,000 Annual

5. Host or conduct workshops on Purple Loosestrife

TLC/Lake Assoc

Agendas, participant evaluations

Support of volunteers & other agencies

$30/attendee Annual

6. Provide residents with information on bio-control

TLC/Lake Assoc

Documents provided Support of TLC/Tribe/Lake Associations

$1000 printing/supplies

Annual

7. Consider restoring tall native wetland plants to infested areas


Document discussions Support of TLC/Tribe/Lake Associations, others




Objective C - Continue monitoring infestations of Rainbow Smelt and Rusty Crayfish.


Limitations


1. Publicize history of previous actions to monitor/control infestations

Tribe Documents Tribal support $12/hour, .58/mile Ongoing

2. Conduct workshop on the fishery, including monitoring smelt and crayfish

Tribe/TLC Agenda, participant evaluations

Tribal Support $12/hour, .58/mile Ongoing

3. Continue monitoring Rainbow Smelt & Rusty Crayfish

Tribe/ Volunteers

Documents Report Card: Biology

Tribal Support, TLC Support $12/hour, .58/mile Ongoing




Goal IV - Broaden Residents’ Understanding of Swimmer’s Itch

Objective A - Provide residents with a variety of educational experiences and materials on Swimmer’s Itch,

including alternatives treating it or reducing the probability of contracting it.


Limitations


1. Establish Action Plan Bear River Team

Written Plan Support of Tribe, Town, Availability of volunteers

$12/hour, .58/mile Annual

2. Review current research and literature

Bear River Team

List of items reviewed Availability of research & literature

$12/hour, .58/mile Ongoing

3. Contact appropriate professionals and authorities about Swimmers’ Itch

Bear River Team

List of individuals/organizations

Availability of professionals $12/hour, .58/mile Ongoing

4. Host community-wide workshops Bear River Team

Agenda & evaluation of participants

# registrants, availability of presenters

$30/attendee Annual

5. Distribute information in newsletters, bulletins, and PSAs

Bear River Team

Copies of items distributed Support of partnering agencies $12/hour, .58/mile Annual

6. Identify alternatives for treating it or reducing the probability of contracting it

Bear River Team

Summative report Availability of alternatives $12/hour, .58/mile To be determined

7. Conduct or participate in a research study of Swimmer’s Itch

Bear River Team

Final research report Support of partnering agencies $150,000 To be determined


Goal V - Reduce User Conflicts

Objective A - Provide the public with opportunities to learn about user conflicts.


Limitations


1. Determine extent of user conflicts Tribe Survey Tribe/TLC/Funding To be determined Triennial

2. Develop & distribute education materials on minimizing user conflicts

Tribe, WDNR Availability of materials, distribution list

Support of Tribe, WDNR, availability of resources

To be determined Ongoing

3. Host workshop on fishery (size limits, stocking, etc.)

Tribe # attendees, workshop evaluation

# registrants, support of Tribe, availability of resources

$100/attendee Quadrennial

4. Joint review of current enforcement (# wardens, incidents, etc.)

Tribe/Town Report Support of Tribe & Town To be determined To be determined




Goal VI - Strengthen or Increase Collaborations

Objective A - Encourage participation in educational experiences related to partnerships and collaborations.


Limitations


1. Provide workshop(s) on how to establish a lake association

TLC # attendees, workshop evaluation

Support of TLC, # registrants $50/attendee Biennial

2. Encourage attendance at Lake Leaders Institute


# attendees Availability of volunteers, resources

$800/attendee Biennial

3. Encourage attendance at Wisconsin Lakes Conference



$800/attendee Annual

4. Encourage attendance at Vilas County Lakes Association



$100/attendee Annual

5. Encourage attendance at Lakes Fest


# attendees Support of partnering agencies $7,000/event Annual

6. Provide workshop or meeting for lake associations on planning


Support of TLC, # registrants $30/attendee Annual

7. Provide a workshop for lake associations on preparing grant applications


Availability of grants, support of TLC, # registrants

$30/attendee Annual



Objective B - Provide a variety of ways to share information about watershed and lake planning.


Limitations


1. Host a Lake Association Gathering

TLC/Tribe # attendees, program evaluation

Support of Tribe/TLC/ Lake Associations

$50/attendee Annual

2. Establish an ongoing exchange of newsletters, brochures, etc. between lake associations, the Tribe, and the TLC

TLC Participant evaluation Support of partnering agencies $100 Annual

3. Disseminate information to lake associations about the Wisconsin Lakes Association, Annual Convention, Leadership Program, & other local, County and State offerings

TLC Lake association feedback Support of TLC and lake associations, availability of materials


Annual

4. Present information at Local, County, State, & National conferences and meetings

Tribe/TLC Per host agency Support of Tribe, Town, availability of presenters

Variable Per host agency

5. Consider issuing joint TLC/Tribe/Lake Association newsletter


Newsletter distribution Support of partnering agencies, availability of author

$7,000/issue Annual





Objective C - Focus on ways to reach out to individuals and organizations.


Limitations


1. Establish system for contacting new residents

TLC # residents contacted Support of TLC $100/visit Ongoing

2. Encourage the WDNR to establish a protocol for writing watershed and lake management plans.

Bear River Action Team

Development of protocol Support of WDNR TBD To be determined

3. Revise the current Rapid Response Plan

Tribe/TLC Availability of revised plan Tribal support $1,000-$5,000 Quinquennial

4. Consider establishing a watershed plan for the other watersheds in Lac du Flambeau

Tribe/TLC Additional watershed plans Positive evaluation of Bear River Watershed plan, support of Tribe & TLC, availability of volunteers and resources

$50,000/ watershed

To be determined

5. Evaluate establishing the position of Invasive Species Coordinator for Lac du Flambeau

Tribe/TLC Report Support of Tribe, Town, & Lake Associations

TBD To be determined

6. Develop an indigenous arts and sciences institute

Tribe/ Universities

# Participants Support of Tribe and Universities

$4,000,000 To be determined



Notes for Section 21 1. GIDAKIIMINAAN (Our Earth): An Anishinaabe Atlas of

the 1836, 1837, and 1842 Treaty Ceded Territories (Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, 2007) 50.

2. R.G. Norwood was a field scientist who participated in a geological survey in 1847 of Wisconsin sponsored by the U.S. government. His report was presented to Congress in a letter by David Owen in 1848, Letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, communicating a report of the geological reconnaissance of the Chippewa Land District of Wisconsin, and the northern part of Iowa. Pages 91-93. https://archive.org/details/lettersecretary00offigoog

3. Aaron Shapiro, The Lure of the North Woods: Cultivating Tourism in the Upper Midwest (University of Minnesota Press, 2013) 97.

4. James K. Bokern, History of the Primary Routes of the Six Bands of Chippewa from the Lac du Flambeau District Unpublished Masters Thesis, 1987, Chapter IX. Online at: http://www.marshfield.k12.wi.us/socsci/discovery/bokern/default.htm

5. Information from several correspondences from July-October, 2009 between the Pokegama Lake Association, White Sand lake Association, and the WDNR.

6. Michael J. Goc, Reflections of Lac du Flambeau: An Illustrated History of Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin, 1745-1995 (New Past Press Inc., 1995) 92.

7. Ibid, 149.

8. Conversations with Sue Robertson, daughter of original owners, February 2014, and August 2014 (Public Meeting).

9. Neil Johnson, Resorts of Wisconsin (NLJ Books, Hibbing, MN, 2012) 114.

10. Ibid, 115-119.

11. Ibid. Also see, Chad Lewis, The Wisconsin Road Guide to Gangster Hot Spots (On the Road Publications, 2012). www.ontheroadpublications.com.

12. Information from interviews with Sue Robertson, daughter of original owners, February 2014, and August 2014 (Public Meeting).

13. Information from interview with Rick Zelm, current proprietor of White Sand Resort, February 2014.

14. Goc, 92. Additionally, the following statement was provided by Hoyt Bacon, son of William Thompson Bacon, Jr., an early supporter and owner of the camp. Camp Wipigaki was founded in 1922 by ten Chicago families. Today, the majority of the original families still retain an interest in the Camp, which is now owned by 12 families. The vision was to create a communal family camp retaining as much as possible of the natural environmenrt in the woods and lakes. Over the years the camp has acquired more land and today has land adjoining seven lakes - White Sand, Little Sand, Eagle, Ike Walton, Pokegama, Sunfish and Crooked. The Camp is in the State of Wisconsin's Managed Forest Plan and has harvested the forests according to the plan. There are no plans for any more development on the land or to sell any portion of the land the Camp owns. (Hoyt Bacon, 2014).

15. Resorts listed on two Lac du Flambeau Chamber of Commerce maps in the 1960s: Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation and Lac du Flambeau Lake Region.

16. The survey data presented throughout the section is from the Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012. See Appendix.

17. Quality Assurance Protection Plan (QAPP) , Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Aquatic Plant habitat Point Intercept Survey of Lakes for Plants 2010.

18. Results of the WISCALM Botanist Review Panel for Aquatic Macrophyte Impairment.

19. Quality Assurance Protection Plan, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, General Chemistry Assessment of Waters within the Lac du Flambeau Reservation 2012 (QAPP) for General Chemistry.

20. Tribal Water Quality Standards.

21. Quality Assurance Protection Plan, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, General Chemistry Assessment of Waters within the Lac du Flambeau Reservation 2012 (QAPP) for General Chemistry.

22. National Lakes Assessment: Technical Appendix, Data Analysis Approach; Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs January 2010 Pg 10-12.

23. Wisconsin 2012 Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (WISCALM) for Clean Water Act Section 305(b), 314, and 303(d) Integrated Reporting, April 2012 http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/surfacewater/documents/FINAL_2012_WisCALM_04-02-12.pdf.

24. Quality Assurance Protection Plan, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, (QAPP) Shore land Development Habitat 2008.

25. National Lakes Assessment: Technical Appendix, Data Analysis Approach; Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs January 2010 Pg 10-12.

26. Quality Assurance Protection Plan, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, (QAPP) for Beach Monitoring 2008.

27. Tribal Water Quality Standards.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. National Lake Survey Report.

31. http://www.manresa-sj.org/stamps/1_Secchi.htm.

32. Information in the first paragraph is from People of the Lakes: A Guide for Wisconsin Lake Organizations, DNR Publication PUB-FH-821-2006. The remaining information about the White Sand Lake Association was provided by association members Pam Anthony and Kris LaMarche, August, 2014.

Figure Notes for Section 21 Figure 21-1. Map of Lakes. Provided by Tribal Natural Resources Department.

Figure 21-2. Dillman’s First Lodge. Photograph provided by Stephanie Skotterud, Dillman’s.



Table Notes for Section 21 Table 21-3. Perceived vs Actual Presence of AIS. Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #26. See Appendix.

Table 21-4. Perceived to be Threatened by AIS. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #27. See Appendix.

Table 21-5. Concern about AIS Getting into the Lake. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #29. See Appendix.

Table 21-6. Time Spent Checking for AIS During Open Water Season. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #28. See Appendix.

Table 21-9. Whether Aquatic Plants Impede Enjoyment of the Lake. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #15. See Appendix.

Table 21-10. Removal of Aquatic Plants from the Lake. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #18. See Appendix.

Table 21-11. Removal of Fallen Trees from the Lake. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #19. See Appendix.

Table 21-12. Whether Aquatic Plant Control is Needed. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #16. See Appendix.

Table 21-13. Preferences for Treating/removing Aquatic Invasive Plants. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #30. See Appendix.

Table 21-14. Current vs Ideal Shoreline Landscaping. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #20-21. See Appendix.

Table 21-15. Interest in Learning about Landscape Design. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #22. See Appendix.

Table 21-17. Perception of Environmental Change. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #32. See Appendix.

Table 21-18. Septic Tank Inspections. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #8. See Appendix.

Table 21-19. White Sand Lake North Lake Water Color. Data from the Citizen Lake Monitoring Network database. http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/clmn/.

Table 21-20. White Sand Lake Deep Hole Lake Water Color. Data from the Citizen Lake Monitoring Network database. http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/clmn/.

Table 21-21. Perception of Current Lake Water Quality. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #23. See Appendix.

Table 21-22. Perception of Change in Lake Water Quality. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #24. See Appendix.

Table 21-23. Number of Fish Stocked. Data provided by the Tribal Natural Resources Department.

Table 21-24. Perception of Current Quality of Fishing. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #11. See Appendix.

Table 21-25. Perception in Change of Fishing Quality. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #12. See Appendix.

Table 21-26. White Sand Lake North Observations of Lake Water Levels. Data from the Citizen Lake Monitoring Network database. http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/clmn/.

Table 21-27. White Sand Lake Deep Hole Observations of Lake Water Levels. Data from the Citizen Lake Monitoring Network database. http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/clmn/.

Table 21-28. Lake Issues of Most Concern. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #31. See Appendix.

Table 21-29. Interest in Attending Workshops. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #33. See Appendix.

Table 21-30. Accessing the Town's Website. Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #34. See Appendix.

Table 21-31. Accessing Sources of Information about AIS Data from Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Survey, Lake-by-lake Comparisons, June 2012, Question #35. See Appendix.

Figures Figure 21-1. Map of Lakes ............................................... 21-1

Figure 21-2. Dillman’s Resort on White Sand Lake ......... 21-3

Figure 21-3. Lake Food Pyramid ..................................... 21-6



Figure 21-4. Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Values for White Sand Lake at Various Depths ................................................................. 21-8

Figure 21-5. Total Phosphorus Concentration Trends in White Sand Lake ............................................. 21-8

Figure 21-6. Chlorophyll a Concentration Trends in White Sand Lake ................................................. 21-8

Figure 21-7. Secchi Depth, Total Phosphorus, and Chlorophyll a Trends for White Sand Lake .......... 21-9

Figure 21-8. Phosphorus Loading Sources for White Sand Lake ........................................................... 21-9

Figure 21-9. White Sand Lake Watershed Land Uses (Red – Developed; Blue – Open Water; Light Green – Wetland; Dark Green – Forest) .............. 21-9

Figure 21-10. Substrate Map of White Sand Lake ......... 21-10

Figure 21-11. White Sand Lake 2010 Aquatic Point Intercept Survey ................................................ 21-11

Figure 21-12. Secchi Depth Trends for White Sand Lake .................................................................. 21-18

Figure 21-13. Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations vs Fish Length ........................................................ 21-20

Figure 21-14. Lake Water Level Fluctuations During 2012-2014 ......................................................... 21-21

Tables Table 21-1. Basic Data for White Sand Lake .................. 21-2

Table 21-2. Assessment Categories and Indicator Values for White Sand Lake ................................ 21-5

Table 21-3. White Sand Lake - Perceived vs Actual Presence of AIS................................................... 21-6

Table 21-4. White Sand Lake - Perceived to be Threatened by Aquatic Invasive Species ............. 21-7

Table 21-5. White Sand Lake - Concern about AIS Getting into the Lake ........................................... 21-7

Table 21-6. White Sand Lake - Time Spent Checking for AIS During Open Water Season ..................... 21-7

Table 21-7. 2010 Aquatic Plant Community Statistics, White Sand Lake, Vilas County, WI ................... 21-10

Table 21-8. 2010 Floristic Quality Index, White Sand Lake, Vilas County, WI ...................................... 21-13

Table 21-9. White Sand Lake - Whether Aquatic Plants Impede Enjoyment of the Lake ............... 21-14

Table 21-10. White Sand Lake - Removal of Aquatic Plants from the Lake .......................................... 21-14

Table 21-11. White Sand Lake - Removal of Fallen Trees from the Lake .......................................... 21-14

Table 21-12. White Sand Lake - Whether Aquatic Plant Control is Needed ..................................... 21-14

Table 21-13. White Sand Lake - Preferences for Treating/Removing Aquatic Invasive Plants ....... 21-14

Table 21-14. White Sand Lake - Current Shoreline Landscaping vs Ideal Shoreline Landscaping .... 21-15

Table 21-15. White Sand Lake - Interest in Learning About Landscape Design................................... 21-15

Table 21-16. Index Values for Environmental Assessment Parameters.................................... 21-16

Table 21-17. White Sand Lake - Perceptions of Environmental Change ....................................... 21-16

Table 21-18. White Sand Lake - Septic Tank Inspection .......................................................... 21-17

Table 21-19. White Sand Lake North - Lake Water Color .................................................................. 21-18

Table 21-20. White Sand Lake Deep Hole - Lake Water Color ........................................................ 21-19

Table 21-21. White Sand Lake - Perception of Current Water Quality ........................................ 21-19

Table 21-22. White Sand Lake - Perception of Change in Water Quality .................................... 21-19

Table 21-23. Number of Fish Stocked During 2003–2012 in White Sand Lake (1,195 acres) ............. 21-20

Table 21-24. White Sand Lake - Perceptions of Current Quality of Fishing .................................. 21-20

Table 21-25. White Sand Lake - Perceptions of Change in Fishing Quality .................................. 21-21

Table 21-26. White Sand Lake North - Number of Observations of Lake Water Levels ................... 21-21

Table 21-27. White Sand Lake Deep Hole - Number of Observations of Lake Water Levels ................ 21-21

Table 21-28. White Sand Lake - Lake Issues of Most Concern.............................................................. 21-22

Table 21-29. White Sand Lake - Interest in Attending Workshops ......................................................... 21-23

Table 21-30. White Sand Lake - Accessing the Town’s Website .................................................. 21-23

Table 21-31. White Sand Lake - Accessing Sources of Information for AIS ......................................... 21-23

Table 21-32. Setting the Pace - White Sand Lake ......... 21-25















"A Healthy Lake"

Tyler Wildcat, Grade 1, 2013

Lac du Flambeau Public School